Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"

I have a huge collection of 3-D slides that I took with my Stereo Realist. The stopper for me was when Kodak ended production of Kodachrome 25. Good 3-D needs a very fine-grained film to keep the illusion when the image is projected. The colors were very accurate with K25 and fortunately they do not fade with time. I have slides from the 60's that are still as fresh as when I took the photos. It's neat to step back in time viewing the old slides. Civil war photos were 3-D because there was a huge 3-D fad at that time as well.

Bob at PC

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:phys-l-] On Behalf Of John Clement
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 1:15 AM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"

If the camera was a Nimslo from the 1980s, I saw one on E-bay for about
$179. The more recent 3-d cameras for lenticular prints have 3 lenses.
lenticular presentation for 3-d goes back to the 1940s, and some large
prints fetch fancy prices. But for home 3-D nothing matches slides
taken in
the Realist format on Kodachrome viewed through a good viewer.
Unfortunately many people wanted 3-d photos so they bought the Realist
system cameras, shot a couple of rolls, and then put it on the shelf.
found the 3-d viewing to be inconvenient. But the 3-d pictures using
Holmes-Bates viewer continued to be made from the 1800s up through WWI
later. A large fraction of civil war photos were originally in 3-d,
but are
usually not printed in 3-d.

The valuable collectables are often the cheap items that everyone
away. So carefully preserved Caruso recordings are cheap, while old
78s can be expensive because they were worn out and discarded so the
remaining ones can fetch fancy prices.

The better lenticular prints were made with more than 4 lenses and can
viewed well at wider angles. This technology used to be used to print
3-d magazine covers, but not they are more likely to do it with a

The 3-d craze comes and goes on an approximately 40 year cycle. It is
clear that the current 3-d movie system will survive. The last big 3-d
craze peaked in 1955 and burst in 1956. Even though the theaters
packed in
more people for the 3-d movies, they dropped the system. Rear Window
filmed in 3-d but only released in flat. It will only survive if the
studios make really good pictures in 3-d. I thought the effects in
to the Center of the Earth were very good, as was Avatar. But fancy
technology can not substitute for good plots and acting. Avatar
milked every cliché, so you really had the feeling you had seen all of
before. But you can only make just so many successful parodies before
run out of ideas, and then have to make non-parodies.

For the well heeled there are now 3-d HD home movie cameras.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

Leigh Palmer wrote:
Have you seen 3D postcards? They can be viewed through a narrow
acceptance angle like the TV you describe. If you examine them
you will find an array (I'm tempted to say "grating") of vertical
cylindrical lenses cemented over the picture. The picture itself is
made up of two pictures, a stereo pair, printed in a manner similar
the old fashioned TV raster tuned sideways. /snip/

(Not proofread - sorry. I apologize in advance, since it's late.)

Leigh's note reminds me that I tossed out a 3-D camera in its
box a week or two ago, that my wife brought for me as a curio, some
It seemed to be in 35 mm format, and had four lenses. It took half
customary number of shots, and the film was to be turned in to a
specific processing center. I believe that they were using the
lenticular presentation he describes here.

Forum for Physics Educators